[Draft] Repeal: Recognition of the General Assembly

[Sierra Lyricalia]

And really, if GA rules did somehow now apply to raiding/defending, what's the issue? The GA managed to get its head around non-compliance being possible several years ago.

...From the very first thing I ever wrote for GenSec (didn't wind up being used, but I stand by the reasoning):

...So the Metagaming rule is essential. But why should it extend as far as prohibiting the mere mention of the Security Council? It's not like we're ordering the SC to impose a no-fly zone on West Bigtopia, we just want to name-drop it to give our resolution more gravitas. Isn't this just a terribly petty imposition of some old-timer's crotchety role-playing preferences?

The answer is no. By acknowledging the existence of a body that materially affects gameplay mechanics in a way that is logically absurd from the GA's perspective,¹ the GA would be examining (and thereby inviting) precisely the kind of nonsensical result described above. The GA only makes any sense if it is the sole supreme supranational body; and if all of its powers can be felt by member nations. If an alleged "power" of the GA does not actually affect member nations, that is an absurd result and therefore it cannot actually be a power of the GA. The Security Council, mechanically speaking an independent and somehow equally supreme supranational body², cannot be affected by the GA even though membership in both bodies is exactly contiguous; therefore for GA actions to make any sense whatsoever, the GA must not be able to recognize the SC's existence.


¹It could be argued that the Security Counsel's entire raison d'etre is the premeditated (not to say malicious) continual violation of GA Resolution #2, but not here.

²This state of affairs is nothing short of astonishing in the logic of the General Assembly; were it acknowledged openly in character, it would quickly become the sole topic of debate, legislation, military action, etc. etc. etc.

(emphasis added)

I can't tell if you just didn't bother reading G-R's succinct but thorough summary, or if you sincerely don't get it. The entire appeal of the General Assembly is in writing international law. The Security Council is a) not concerned with that, and b) violates those laws as a matter of course. You misunderstand the reasons why people play the game, and then complain that they're being obstinate or obstreperous when you propose changes that actively reduce the appeal or even break the game entirely.

It sounds like what you're trying to do is produce a unified WA game wherein the SC takes substantive action against those who violate GA laws - not only liberating non-compliant regions, say, but actively shunning noncompliant nations (players). If so you're hoping that there will be a new breed of NS player, who doesn't use the SC primarily for Gameplay (R/D) purposes at all, but rather first as a tool of a whole WA, in which the entire WA functions as a parliament, both passing laws and giving an executive specific powers to enforce them; and only second as an adjuct of the R/D game.

If this is the case, you'll need a ground-up redesign of the game. It can't be done piecemeal by gradually kludging things onto the existing framework. Those kludges reduce the intrinsic appeal of the GA game without adding enough substance to attract new players. If the GA and SC are to be played as part of the same game, the basic foundation has to be 1) a repeal of GAR #2 and 2) an understanding that the SC's primary purpose is enforcing GA laws against those who answer issues the wrong way, those who RP war crimes in II, those who claim abortion bans in their factbooks.... etc. etc. etc. Not to mention more serious consequences than a lip-service condemnation (iffy, since IIRC Max has said there will never be any kind of war mechanic beyond R/D). Sure, gameplay can come in there if you want, but what you're going for has little to do with keeping the SC primarily as the public face of the R/D game. It sounds like it could be fun! But it's definitely not closely related to the reasons why people play either the GA or the SC currently. The SC community ought to be just as skeptical of this agenda as the GA people are, and for the same reasons. What you like about the game and the reasons you would recommend it to others is/are being actively undermined in service of something incredibly ill-defined, and then you're being accused of childish resistance to all change per se when you point out that the specific proposed changes are unhelpful to the game itself.

Now, if you're not trying to do all that, that's great but then I can't imagine how you still don't understand why the two chambers can't be reconciled to each other with a snap of your fingers. I have nothing against the Security Council or its players, but it is a separate game with separate goals, rules, and achievements, to the point where I don't even use this nation (my GA nation) for its business - I maintain a puppet specifically for GP matters.

Good arguments in favor of keeping this bill around may exist, but so far they haven't shown up in this thread. I'm in support of repealing this. As for why, I'll just quote Sedgistan, since he already articulated it well.

What is it with a certain subset of General Assembly players being so insistent that the only way they can function is to ignore the Security Council - yet simultaneously coming into the Security Council to repeatedly insist that it does as they wish?

I didn't get the sense Sedge was arguing in favor of repeal. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

[Sedgistan]

I can't tell if you just didn't bother reading G-R's succinct but thorough summary, or if you sincerely don't get it.

It's also possible that I read it and disagree with it. If the SC decides that GA rules do apply to gameplay actions, that still doesn't interfere with how players only interested in the General Assembly (or who treat the GA and SC as entirely separate games) "play" within the GA. It's the SC's problem, not the GA's, to interpret how/if it thinks GA rules apply to gameplay acations. Or we go back to my main point that it's just an expression of opinion, not an obligation.

But we're going in circles here, as both sides are rehashing views already expressed.

I didn't get the sense Sedge was arguing in favor of repeal. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

You're correct. I was not arguing in favour of a repeal.

[SherpDaWerp]

GA resolutions by design always alter national statistics. Therefore, it is fact that all nations are compliant with resolutions. Yet when it inevitably happens that some region's inhabitants fail to create a republican constitution and in fact say "To hell with democracy, we pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to Shahanshah Torg the Abominable in perpetual totalitarian absolutism," then they are emphatically and obviously not in compliance. Yet their statistics have changed to reflect their clear and inescapable compliance! Thus the lack of a Metagaming rule would create a situation in which two mutually exclusive, logically irreconcilable things could be the case simultaneously.

I feel like I'm missing something fundamental here, cause the answer seems obvious as hell.

The closest RL analogy to "regions" we have is the EU. If you want to NS-ify that a little bit... it's a group of nations, free to pass their own laws, free to govern their little group as they see fit, based on geographical boundaries (which is - as Goober mentioned - completely IC, given the "helicopters lifting nations around" thing exists), and when a nation moves into their arbitrary geographical boundaries, they get included in the group. Basically, regions are heaps of little EUs.

Now, if the RL UN says "we want all member nations to be democracies", then all the member nations have to be democracies. Not doing so would be noncompliance. But the EU isn't a member nation of the UN, it's just a random other separate group of nations. So the EU, which isn't a member nation, isn't bound by "member nations have to be democracies". They can govern as they see fit. The "regional inhabitants" in your analogy pledging to whoever aren't breaking anything by being in a totalitarian region, because the GA doesn't legislate regions. And if said "regional inhabitants" are submitting their citizens to said totalitarian rule... then they're bog-standard noncompliant, whup tee doo.

There. Done. That's literally it. The UN (which is also the WA-equivalent) can legislate nations as they will, while the SC legislates everything that's not national law. (inter-regional conflicts, invasions - which don't affect the internal affairs of a nation, defending, whatever). The SC can't (rather, couldn't, considering declarations are currently, technically, permitted to recommend what nations should do internally) step on the GA's toes at all because the SC can't write a piece of legislation that affects the citizens of a nation, and vice-versa, the GA can only affect citizens of nations, and not deal with inter-regional conflicts.

Someone please help me understand why this entirely reasonable interpretation apparently causes the end to reality as we know it. It can't be this easy.

[Wallenburg]

Great masses of diplomats, bureaucrats, and insufferable political pundits within Member-States writhing in incurable madness following the revelation of a second chamber within the World Assembly,

"I'm afraid that's an issue that a repeal cannot resolve. My office has fabricated its medical records for many years so as to shield our senior staff from receiving the memory-altering anti-SC serum distributed to every ambassador. We've known for a damned long time that this chamber exists and now so do you. With the sheer number of delegations suddenly exposed to the truth through the announcement by the World Assembly Compliance Commission, I simply cannot see a way for Headquarters to bottle up the knowledge, whether a repeal passes or not."

[The Random Thief]

I was not arguing in favour of a repeal.

Honestly, I never meant to imply you were, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. You perfectly described my reason for being in favor of a repeal, even though it wasn't a reason for you - just an observation you were making.